(PC)Garcia v. Lacey et al, No. 1:2015cv00774 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER on 7 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER REMANDING Matter to State Court, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/9/2015. Case REMANDED to Tuolumne County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 GUILLERMO GARCIA, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 1:15-cv-00774-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER ON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. B. A. LACEY, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT (Doc. Nos. 4, 7) 15 16 Guillermo Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 17 action. On May 20, 2015, Defendants removed this case from the Tuolumne County Superior 18 Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The operative Complaint is the First 19 Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand and a 20 motion to strike. See Doc. No. 4. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 20, 2015, a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) were entered that 23 recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand. See Doc. No. 7. The parties were granted 24 thirty days in which to file objections to the F&R. See id. The thirty-day time period has 25 passed, and no party has filed objections or any other response to the findings and 26 recommendations. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B), this court has conducted 28 a de novo review of this case. Given the FAC’s references to the United States Constitution, 1 1 and the prayer for a declaration that the United States Constitution was violated by Defendants, 2 the Court agrees with the F&R that a federal question is present. 3 respectfully does not agree that this case should remain in federal court. However, the Court 4 As part of Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff indicated that he intends to pursue only 5 California law claims. See Doc. No. 4 at p.2. Plaintiff moved the Court to strike references in 6 the FAC to “deliverate [sic], cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal Constitution of 7 the United States or anything else that arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” See Doc. No. 4 at Ex. 8 A. If Plaintiff does not wish to pursue federal claims, the Court sees no reason to leave such 9 claims in the FAC. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and strike all references in the FAC 10 to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 11 With the striking of all references to the United States Constitution and § 1983, the FAC 12 contains only causes of action based on the California constitution and California law. In other 13 words, there is no longer a federal question present. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district 14 court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district 15 court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because the Court has 16 resolved the federal questions, there is no compelling reason to exercise supplemental 17 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental 18 jurisdiction, and will remand this matter to the Tuolumne County Superior Court. See Macri v. 19 King Cnty., 126 F.3d 1125, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court acted within its discretion in 20 declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanding state law claims). 21 22 ORDER 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. 25 The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. No. 7) are adopted in part and declined to be adopted in part, as discussed above; 26 27 28 1 The Court did not see an express reference to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. However, the First Amended Complaint is over 70 pages long. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will order stricken any references to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2 1 2. 2 3 only state law claims is GRANTED; 3. 4. 6 7 10 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action; 5. 8 9 All references to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are STRICKEN; 4 5 Plaintiff’s request to strike references to federal claims/questions and proceed on Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED; and 6. The Clerk shall remand this matter forthwith to the Tuolumne County Superior Court. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 9, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.